I'm into science and science fiction, but the more I study evolution the more it seems to me that it is far from the 'proven' theory many claim it to be. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. I'm curious what other science lovers think. I have a forum on Amazon about this. Would you mind following the link below and giving me your thoughts on this? (if you don't want to go to the Amazon page, feel free to answer here)

Buy 'Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome' by John Sanford and 'Not by chance' by Lee Spetner 'evolution'=utter mythscience. There is adequate literature on known mutation rate by evolutionary population geneticists showing 100-300 NEW mutations a generation. Mankind is DE-volving.

NancyMadore wrote:I'm into science and science fiction, but the more I study evolution the more it seems to me that it is far from the 'proven' theory many claim it to be. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. I'm curious what other science lovers think. I have a forum on Amazon about this. Would you mind following the link below and giving me your thoughts on this? (if you don't want to go to the Amazon page, feel free to answer here)

I think God spoke to the people who wrote the bible, and they wrote it down, but it was filtered by their own experience. The idea that the Earth was created in 7 days is a scientific theory that they came up with as their best interpretation of God's word, filtered by their own experience. The thing is we have more experience now. Not that we are smarter, but that we have a bigger collection of observations. The theory of evolution is a collection of observations and an attempt to make logical sense out of them. That's what God gave us a brain for. Just because it conflicts with the theory put forth by those who wrote the Bible does not deny God. The God/creation vs. No God/evolution is a stupid, fake conflict. You don't have to deny God to consider the theory of evolution as a pretty good scientific theory, the best we can do so far based on our experience. Einstein said that God is subtle but not malicious. The theory of evolution reveals that subtlety, and both the creationists and the evolutionists who think that it reveals maliciousness are of little faith.

The HYPOTHESIS of neodarwinian 'evolution' IS NOT A THEORY!!!!! It has never been observed and is IMPOSSIBLE to observe given that it (conveniently) allegedly both started and stopped happening pre eye witness testimony/written history (6,000 years) HENCE WHY IT IS JUNK-SCIENCE.

There is a lot of scientific "evidence" that disproves God's existence and proves evolution is real, I personally think that both of them exist. So I wouldn't say evolution is science-fiction because it makes a lot more sense than what is accepted in religion.

I don't see how you could think evolution is science fiction. I think that it's quite clear that man evoled from chimps and apes. Just look at how a like we are, we are even a lot like other animals. If you think evolution is science fiction then stop studying it, and go into more religious studies.

Nancy must have been studying at Answers in Genesis because I have no idea how she can say that the more she studies "the more it seems to me that it is far from the 'proven' theory many claim it to be."

Evolutionary science is based on evidence and the theory follows the laws of physics. contrary to Jinx's willfully ignorant comments, evolution has been and continues to be observed, so it has most definitely not stopped.

One problem that science has is that the definition and usage of words in science is sometimes different from that used in every day language. The word "theory" is the most problematic. But we often say that we have "proved" something when we really haven't - we have failed to disprove it. It's certainly easier to say "prove" and it's easier for nonscientists to understand than "fail to disprove." And, when we have failed to disprove something repeatedly (like over 150 years of testing, as for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection), then we start to think that we really have proved something - when we haven't. Everything in science is subject to new evidence that will contradict the long-held paradigm. And that is how science differs from most religions (especially Christianity).

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."Theodosius Dobzhansky"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."Anonymous

bfmv2, there is no "scientific "evidence" that disproves God's existence" Science cannot (and does not try to) disprove god(s), as it is philosophically impossible to prove that something does not exist. Also, god(s), by definition are outside of the laws of physics. Since science is constrained by those laws, science completely disregards the possibility of any gods.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."Theodosius Dobzhansky"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."Anonymous